Free As a Bird

Free as a Bird  by Gina McMurchy-Barber is a book I impulse bought while in a cute rustic book cafe up in the small town of Rossland, B.C. after a two-hour hike up the side of a mountain.  I had already placed myself on a book-buying ban from buying 27 new books at a used book sale one week earlier, and 4 other new books at a college in Vancouver, which I had just visited a couple of days ago.  Nonetheless, this book caught my attention as I was browsing through the idyllic bookstore: first because this book was a finalist for the Govorner General's literary awards, second because that meant the book was written by a Canadian author, third because the book was small, and fourth because of the premise of the book as it was written on the back cover seemed really interesting.

 

 

This book tells the story of a life of a young girl with Down Syndrome in British Columbia at the time in history when people with such disabilities were sent to insane asylums where they were treated little better (and maybe even worse) than prisoners.  This story is told in the first person as Ruby-Jean Sharp recounts her life in Woodlands School - a once real-life institution that had been originally called the Provincial Asylum for the Insane.  With the voice of a young girl who can't quite understand everything going on around her, Ruby-Jean describes her surroundings and emotional reactions to those surroundings in ways that cannot help but provoke emotions in the reader. 

 

 

It is noteworthy to mention that although the characters in the novel are fictionous, the author did spend 6 months herself at Woodlands School as a caregiver and witnessed firsthand many of the abuses that could be given to the children there. Her own sister had been born with a disability but her parents decided to raise Jane instead of sending her to an institution like the doctor recommended.  The author, Gina, later left her job at the institution to work for the Community Living Society, an organization started by parents and caring staff to get residents out of Woodlands School and into group homes in the community. 

 

 

I have never cried so much while reading a book.  Out of the story's 160 pages, I probably only spent about 30 of them dry-eyed, if that.  It was an awkward encounter while camping when my friend stepped out of his cabin in the morning only to find me on the deck with tears streaming down my face and a pile of kleenex beside me.  The story is heart-rending - all the more so because it is based on true circumstances.  This sort of thing actually happened to people, and it broke my heart reading about it.  The story itself was told brilliantly, the emotions and descriptions are so vivid that they leave a very clear picture in the mind of the reader.  I would recommend this book, but only if you feel like you need something to cry about.

Invitation to Silence and Solitude

As many know, this past semester, my last one at college, was quite a rough one.  On the verge of a mental breakdown, I begged God for the opportunity to "just get away from it all."  It was at that time that an idea came to me - to go on a road trip come May for a week, after school was done.  I began to make plans for this trip, and part of my plans involved purchasing a bookCD from Amazon that was on sale and that had caught my attention: Invitation to Silence and Solitude by Ruth Haley Barton.

Listening to this book probably changed my life, but in ways that are still intangible and unexplainable.  As I listened to the author explain the essence and substance of these two disciplines, I began to identify the overwhelming desires of my own soul to experience these two things.  I realized that there is nothing more that I desire in life right now than silence and solitude.  I am tired of doing, tired of trying and tired of performing - I want the permission to be, and not for anyone else except for myself and God.

The thing that I liked most about this book, I think, is that the author made it all right for a person to seek out silence and solitude, even at the expense of being anti-social.  She made it all right to be selfish for a time, so that we can feel free to be silent and solitude without having to fulfill any external obligations.  She observed that if we give our souls the care they need, they will start caring again on their own.

The only problem with silence and solitude is that they are all but impossible to obtain in this world that we live in.  My week long road-trip/pilgrimage was such a short time, just a quick dip before I had to get out again and into the real world.  I still find myself longing for silence and solitude, but once again the rhythms of everyday life are obstructing its call.  This book remains a reminder to me that solitude will always be there waiting for me, ready to pick up where we left off, if I am willing to take the plunge into the silence.

  

Recursion

I did the math a couple of weeks ago and realized that if I read a book a week from the unread books pile on my shelves, I would have more than enough books to keep me busy for well over a year. Now that I am finished school, I have decided to begin to make inroads on this pile of books, since I can now indulge in the life of a free woman: I can read what |I want to, when I want to and how I want to.  As a result of this freedom, I have gone through a number of books over the past couple of months that I have been meaning to mention on here, but have neglected to write about thus far.

It is time to rectify this situation.

The first book I picked off my shelf was Recursion by Tony Ballantine.  I had picked up this book a couple of years ago at the sale section of the library for .50 cents.  I had never heard of the author before |(this apparently was his first book), and I have not read much science fiction in my reading history thus far, but I came to the conclusion that there must always be a first time for everything

At first the book was confusing.  The first chapter was about a young rich man who destroyed a planet through rogue robots and had gotten caught by a mysterious, powerful stranger.  The second chapter was about a young woman who was trying to get away with her own suicide in a society that has its every moved watched.  The third chapter was about a young man who could function in this omniaware society without being seen, like a ghost, as he followed a strange woman to the heart of a technological city to hear about its secrets.  Needless to say, the novel made no sense to me at first.

As I persevered however, the stories began to converge as the overlining plot began to be revealed, and the truth of the plot was something quite profound indeed.  The book was asking the basic existential questions that if there was a being such as God, who had the power to make everything in our lives perfect, whether it would be worth the surrendering of our privacy, free choice and free will to have our lives planned for us?  We would all be happy, but would that be worth the cost of our freedom?  Not only that, but if one person's happiness was worth the destruction of another person's happiness, which person would you choose to make happy?  The book, in its subtle way, makes the reader slowly aware that the basic human skepticisms about theodicy are simplistic in their assumption that a good God must always act in a way that brings about our happiness.

The Consolations of Philosophy

Taking a short break from my required correspondence course reading, I have just finished The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton. The title is borrowed from a medieval work by Boethius, and in this book de Botton introduces the reader to the lives and ideas of several important philosophers. He highlights how such philosophy can speak to our deepest needs and uncertainties today.

Consolation for Unpopularity: Socrates

Socrates knew that prevalent cultural norms and opinions were not always based in reality and common sense. Truth is not decided by majority opinion, but ought to be the result of logic. Just because your idea is uncommon does not mean that it is wrong. Even when Socrates was condemned to death by the court of Athens (on charges of failing to worship the gods and corrupting the city's youth), he refused to renounce his philosophy though doing so probably could have saved his life. He held his beliefs, even when they made him unpopular. In contrast, de Botton puts words to the way we often feel: "In conversations, my priority was to be liked, rather than to speak the truth" (7).

Consolation for Not Having Enough Money: Epicurus

Epicurus defined the goal of life to be pleasure. However, the things that bring us the most pleasure do not require a great deal of money: friendship, freedom, and reflection. With these elements a person can be happy with our without wealth; without them a person will be unhappy despite any amount of money. The requisites of pleasure are simple and inexpensive.

Consolation for Frustration: Seneca

We are frustrated when reality does not conform to our desires. Seneca recommends with pessimism that we expect the worst so that it cannot surprise us, and lower our idea of what we are entitled to. If we seriously consider our fears, we may discover that their realization wouldn't be as bad as we imagine. In addition, we ought to recognize that disasters are indiscriminate and not take them personally.

Seneca provides an interesting explanation of the interaction between freedom and fate: a dog tied to a cart travelling in one direction has the choice to gladly trot in the same direction, or to attempt to rebel and be forced along. We will follow the road of fate regardless, but the experience will be easier and more pleasurable if we submit tranquilly to circumstances that we cannot change. "It is in our spontaneous acceptance of necessity that we find our distinctive freedom" (109).

Consolation for Inadequacy: Michel de Montaigne

Montaigne noticed that a great deal of philosophy and appropriate social conversation deny a great deal of the natural human condition. In his writings, he sought to be honest about himself as an entire person - mind and body. It is okay to accept our frailties, because we all share in the human condition (125)."What we see evidence for in others, we will attend to within, what others are silent about, we may stay blind to or experience only in shame" (129); thus Montaigne even wrote about experiences that could seem embarrassing or uncouth. By understanding the experiences of others we can be more gracious with ourselves.

Montaigne also defines the difference between learning (book knowledge and trivia) and wisdom (keys to living well), emphasizing the preeminent value of wisdom.

I don't think I had heard of this philosopher before, but reading about him made me interested in looking into his writing further.

Consolation for a Broken Heart: Schopenhauer

Schopenhauer believes that love is an expression of the "will-to-life," a subconscious drive to continue the human species by creating viable offspring. When we fall in love with someone, we are simply (unconsciously) recognizing that their genes will fit well with ours. When we fall out of love with someone, we are simply realizing that our first impression of genetic suitability was wrong - it's nothing personal. This can even be a relief, because the person we choose as a likely mate for healthy, attractive children is not necessarily an appropriate companion who will make us happy (but our will-to-life does not allow us to recognize this, and subjugates our happiness to the furtherance of the human race). It also helps to know that everyone else has at one time or another experienced the same thing.

Consolation for Difficulties: Nietzsche

The core of Nietzsche's philosophy (at least what is presented here) is the idea that pain and pleasure are intimately connected. Reducing one's pain in turn reduces one's capacity for pleasure because they go hand in hand. "Fulfilment was to be reached not by avoiding pain, but by recognizing its role as a natural, inevitable step on the way to reaching anything good" (210). Suffering spurs us on to greater achievement. Nietzsche warns us against low expectations and against anything that numbs or accustoms us to our pain and encourages us to settle.

The Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel

I finished reading this book a while ago but haven't gotten a chance to write about it until now. It was a fascinating look at anthropology set in the exotic world of fiction. Interestingly the author is quite the anthropologist herself and has won many awards for her research and fiction. I suppose fiction is a safe place to put  her findings since they remain largely unable to prove or disprove them.
The story catches you immediately. A little girl naked and frightened goes off in search of help after her whole world is devoured by a nasty earthquake. She's too young to make it on her own and ends up in the path of a wandering tribe who has been forced out of their cave by the same disaster. The girl being one of what the tribe would call "the others" might have been left to die except for the kindness of an old medicine woman who's maternal instinct would not allow the child be left behind. She carries the frightened child to what becomes her new world inside the clan. Instantly this child becomes a problem for the leader because she is different and he is frightened that she will change the delicate fabric that is their society. The girl represents humanity as it is now and the clan represents the cave man who's kind was eventually wiped out to make way for natures second shot at creating humanity that could last. Only near the end does the medicine woman's kindly brother Mog-Ur the clans magic man figure this out. There is a lot of drama around this girl as she tries desperately to become one of the clan and fights to survive. She quickly gains a terrible enemy in the leaders son Broud who has no compassion for the outsider and is jealous of the attention she gets.
It was interesting reading about the differences between the two types of humans and the girls coming of age story was fascinating but the author tended to spend inordinate amounts of time on discriptions which could discourage some readers. Altogether I don't see this series having the same potential as "The Outlander" but it is interesting and I will continue to read it.
The idea of a further evolved race emerging and causing a dilemma for the survival of the other race came up this week in the new X-Men movie. The mutants are not freaks as many humans would assume but really a more advanced version of them. The X-Men have chosen to work with humans to create peace between the two whereas the other mutants have chosen genocide. They see the earth only being able to populate one of the two evolved races and they intend to make sure they are the winners.   

"I Want to Marry You, Because..."

Cast of Characters:

Jane Eyre - the heroine, an orphan, a governess

Mr. Rochester - Jane's employer and love interest - a harsh, unattractive man

Miss Ingram - a beautiful but shallow woman who Rochester pursues

Bertha Mason - Rochester's secret, insane wife

St. John Rivers - Jane's cousin - a strict, disciplined man

Rosamond Oliver - a rich woman in love with St. John

WARNING: This probably includes spoilers if you have not read the story and want the plot to remain a surprise.

How do people choose a marriage partner? The most prominent answers to this question change throughout time. In long ago eras of human history, people sought mates who displayed characteristics suggesting long life and viable offspring. In our current culture, people marry primarily for love, choosing a spouse for their preferred companionship. In the nineteenth century, marriages were influenced by many factors. The story of Jane Eyre illustrates relationships and potential relationships built on status and money, on duty, and on love.

Today's society values work, and people who earn a living through a paying occupation are the norm. In contrast, in the stratified society of the Victorian era the necessity to provide for oneself through labour, instead having an income coming from the interest on an inheritance or from tenants renting land, lowered a family on the social scale. Marriage was regarded as a means of attaining wealth and respectability, and was particularly important for people of rank who were raised in wealthy households but who found themselves with little inheritance as they reached adulthood. This would often be the case for younger sons: to avoid splitting the family's wealth, it would be given intact to only the oldest son. If his younger brothers did not marry rich women, they would be destitute. This is Rochester's situation, and the impetus for his first marriage to Bertha Mason. His older brother was to receive the entire Rochester fortune. His father and brother arranged a marriage between Rochester and a rich woman in Jamaica, and it did not matter to them that this woman had a family history of insanity and was prone to it herself. Rochester did not know about his bride's character or propensities when he married her - in fact, he barely knew her at all. He reports that he never loved her, and his mercenary marriage essentially ruined his life. Further, when his older brother died, Rochester inherited his family's wealth, making Bertha's money and their marriage unnecessary. By that time, however, it was too late.

We see Jane's opinions of marriages for the sake of money or status as she reflects on the relationship between Rochester and Miss Ingram. It is clear that they are pursuing each other, but Jane is convinced that Rochester does not love Miss Ingram. "I saw that he was gong to marry her, for family, perhaps political reasons, because her rank and connexions suited him; I felt that he had not given her his love, and that her qualifications were ill adapted to win from him that treasure" (158-159). Jane considers marrying for anything other than love to be "commonplace" (160), and she feels so strongly about it that she later tells Rochester that "I would scorn such a union: therefore, I am better than you" (216). Jane doesn't understand why any person who has a choice would marry for any reason other than love. However, she realizes that those of a higher class are motivated by different pressures. "The longer I considered the position, education, &c., of the parties, the less I felt justified in judging and blaming either him or Miss Ingram, for acting in conformity to ideas and principles instilled into them, doubtless, from their childhood. All their class held these principles; I supposed, then, they had reasons for holding them such as I could not fathom" (160).

The actual situation between Rochester and Miss Ingram is different than what is represented. It truly is a relationship that lacks love, but Rochester does not intend for it to lead to marriage. He is acting interested in Miss Ingram merely to make Jane jealous. Rochester is essentially sarcastic when, disguised as the fortune teller, he tells Jane "No doubt... they will be a superlatively happy pair. He must love such a handsome, noble, witty, accomplished lady; and probably she loves him: or if not his person, at least his purse" (170-171). Rochester has learned the dangers of a marriage based on status instead of love. It becomes clear that Miss Ingram is only interested in Rochester's money when he spreads rumour that his fortune is smaller than what she expected, and she cools her interest in the relationship (217).

The relationship between Jane and Rochester is based on love and respect. Although they do not belong to the same social class or income bracket, they are able to carry on intelligent conversations and they admire each other's personalities. Rochester calls Jane his equal and his likeness as he proposes to her (217), and she continually lets the reader in on the secret of her love for Rochester. The story eventually concludes with Jane and Rochester's marriage and happy life together.

In the meantime, however, the story demonstrates that love is not always enough to build a successful relationship. Love must be tempered by reason. When we discover that Rochester is already married, it becomes apparent that a marriage between him and Jane would not be legally valid, and that if they were to stay together, Jane would essentially be Rochester's mistress. She believes that this would be wrong, but because she loves Rochester so deeply she faces a very difficult decision. Finally, she realizes that for the sake of her self respect she cannot stay with Rochester (270). Love was not enough when circumstances conspired against the couple.

Rosamond Oliver and St. John Rivers provide another example of two people who love each other but do not end up together. Miss Oliver's love for St. John is clear and uninhibited; St. John's feelings, on the other hand, are reluctant and tortured. He does admit that he loves Miss Oliver, but he refuses to pursue relationship because he considers it impractical. She does not fit with his future plans to be a missionary (318). It is clear that St. John is a character who places a sense of duty above all else.

St. John's sense of duty is even more apparent when he pursues Jane. Not only does he make his own relational decisions based on his calling, but when he recognizes someone who would be suited to the same lifestyle, he expects her to eagerly join him. St. John says to Jane, "God and nature intended you for a missionary's wife... A missionary's wife you must - shall be. You shall be mine: I claim you - not for my pleasure, but for my Sovereign's service" (343). When Jane exhorts St. John to find a wife he loves ("Seek one elsewhere than in me, St. John: seek one fitted to you"), he responds by referring to duty ("One fitted to my purpose, you mean - fitted to my vocation" [346]). Jane attempts turns down St. John's proposal. She is willing to accompany him to India as a missionary, but she will not go as his wife because it is clear to her that St. John does not love her, nor does she love him. St. John will not accept her refusal, however. As he understands it, his desires are the will of God. If someone does not cooperate with his plan, they are disobeying God. St John expresses these fears to Jane: "If you reject it, it is not me you deny, but God. Through my means, He opens to you a noble career; as my wife only can you enter upon it. Refuse to be my wife, and you limit yourself for ever to a track of selfish ease and barren obscurity. Tremble lest in that case you should be numbered with those who have denied the faith, and are worse than infidels!" (348). Jane is not persuaded, however. She will not marry out of sense of duty, even when she is threatened with divine disappointment.

Jane sees an alternative when marriage for love is not available: rather than settling for a love-less marriage, she prefers to remain single. She acknowledges "the fact that [she and St. John] did not love each other as man and wife should; and therefore it inferred we ought not to marry" (345). She says again later, "[St. John] has told me I am formed for labour - not for love: which is true no doubt. But, in my opinion, if I am not formed for love, it follows that I am not formed for marriage" (354). If she does not marry for love, she will not marry at all. St. John's prediction about Jane is wrong, however. Jane and Rochester are "formed" to love each other and to spend a happy life together.

Although most couples today marry for love, there are still contemporary examples of the other reasons behind choosing a spouse. A single mother, for instance, might marry an interested man who has a good job, not because she is madly in love with him but because he can provide for her and be a necessary role model for her children. Jane Eyre provides a timely discussion of the factors involved in choosing a person to marry by discussing love, money, and duty.

Next Up

I'm heading into the fifth book for my correspondence course: Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte. Is anyone interested in reading along with me?

Frankenstein

For my correspondence course, I had to read Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. An interesting choice, I thought - but it is literature, written in England in the 1800s, so I guess it is within the scope I am studying. And you know what? It was so interesting! I would highly recommend reading this book. It turns out that most of the legend of Frankenstein has been developed separately from the original story.

First of all, Frankenstein is the name of the man (Victor Frankenstein) who created a living being. The creature itself is never named. This happens relatively early in the story, and the rest of the book considers the results. Victor is so horrified by his success that he has a mental breakdown (the first of several). His creature must fend for himself, and he learns to speak and read. He is so ugly, though, that everyone runs from him in terror. He has no companions; he is lonely. Though he begins as a benevolent, kind hearted being, his misery turns him into a monster. He eventually seeks out Victor and begs him to create a mate to keep him company and accept him. When Victor refuses and the creature kills Victor's new wife in response, they begin a cycle of mutual revenge.

Frankenstein considers what is owed to creation by its creator. It also looks at what can happen when people are deprived of love and socialization. "Is it scary?" a friend asked me. The characters in the book are scared, but no, reading it is not scary. It's fascinating. (Also, it's easy to read, and though sometimes implausible, the story keeps pulling you forward.)

Wikipedia on Persuasion

"The novel has been described as a great "Cinderella" story (introduction to the Penguin Classics edition). All the similarities between the fairy story and Austen's novel are there; a heroine who is generally unappreciated by those around her; a handsome prince who arrives but seems more interested in the "more obvious" charms of the Musgrove girls than the more steady charms offered by Anne; a moment of realisation and the final happy ending when those who did not appreciate have time to realise what they have lost. It has been said that it is not that Anne is unloved, more that those around her no longer see her, she is such a fixed part of life that her likes and dislikes, wishes and dreams are no longer considered, even by those who claim to appreciate her, like Lady Russell."

(Interesting! I didn't notice this.)

Social Hierarchy in Persuasion

We live in a society where all people are considered to be relatively equal. We may have a plethora of examples opposing this statement, but even those are presented out of our deep assumptions that whether or not you own any land, the amount of money you have, and who your parents are should not control who you can associate with and the value you are given in society. Of course, each of these factors does affect a person's life, and prosperity is preferred over being in need, but we are not immediately defined and classified by such factors. In addition, although our society does have a social structure, we must admit that it is relatively flexible. You are neither guaranteed nor doomed to the level you are born into. On this continent of the self-made man who can pull himself up by his bootstraps, individuals earn their own place in society.

Jane Austen writes about a different world entirely. Hers is a rigidly structured society. Titles and land are passed down through families, allowing status to be inherited. That is how Sir Walter Elliot became a baronet, and he is very proud of his station. It is interesting to learn from Wikipedia that baronetcy is not a noble status, but rather a high rank among commoners, similar to knighthood except that it was inherited. The honour associated with baronets was beginning to decline in the nineteenth century, however. This gradual societal shift is illustrated in Persuasion through the constant tension between Sir Walter's obstinate family pride and Anne's practical recognition of a person's worth regardless of social status.

Sir Walter's title did not confer wisdom upon him. At the beginning of the novel, we meet him in a position where his lifestyle is putting him in debt. He refuses to make necessary cutbacks, however, because he believes that his title must be accompanied by a certain standard of living. Because of his title, he deserves to live with every comfort available. Finally it is decided that he must leave his home in order to live within his means in a manner that still allows him a comfortable living. Although he does not have wealth, he clings to the status that being a baronet provides him. Later he is summarized as "a foolish, spendthrift baronet, who had not had principle or sense enough to maintain himself in the situation in which Providence had placed him" (298).

An early discussion of the navy provides a window into Sir Walter's opinions. He declares that it is "the means of bringing persons of obscure birth into undue distinction, and raising men to honours which their fathers and grandfathers never dreamt of... A man is in greater danger in the navy of being insulted by the rise of one whose father, his father might have disdained to speak of, and of becoming prematurely the object of disgust himself, than in any other line" (27). Sir Walter believes that people should remain in the position to which they are born. He has no use for the meritocracy of the navy, where a person can distinguish himself with his acts. It would be interesting to see whether Sir Walter would still feel strongly about a rigid social hierarchy if he had not inherited an honourable title.

This conversation also gives Anne an opportunity to reveal her opinion: "The navy, I think, who have done so much for us, have at least an equal claim with any other set of men, for all the comforts and all the privileges which any home can give" (27). They are discussing a tenant for Kellynch Hall, and Anne believes that any person who has served his country is deserving of a pleasant home, regardless of his status. She echoes the meritocracy espoused by the navy.

When Admiral Croft is finally considered as a tenant of Kellynch Hall, Sir Walter's strongest thought is about status: an Admiral is a respectable person to have renting one's house, but is thankfully still beneath Sir Walter. Sir Walter can feel both superior and unashamed. Anne, on the other hand, easily comes to recognize that the Croft family, despite their lower status than the Elliots, are much more deserving of her former home. "She had in fact so high an opinion of the Crofts, and considered her father so very fortunate in his tenants, felt the parish to be so sure of a good example, and the poor of the best attention and relief, that however sorry and ashamed for the necessity of the removal, she could not but in conscience feel that they were gone who deserved not to stay, and that Kellynch Hall had passed into better hands than its owners" (149). Anne must admit to herself that the Crofts are morally superior to her father, and her ability to see this indicates and likely loosens her light hold on rigid social hierarchy.

The Dalrymples provide another view into how Anne's measure of a person differs from that of Sir Walter and Elizabeth. The Dowager Vicountess Dalrymple and her daughter, the Honorable Miss Carteret, are cousins of the Elliots, though the relationship is strained. They are also, however, carriers of noble titles. Associating with them would improve the Elliots' social status slightly, and so Sir Walter and Elizabeth make a priority of repairing the relationship, improving it, and boasting about it. Anne is embarrassed by their actions, and she even finds herself wishing that they had more pride (177). The Dalrymples turn out to be very common, undesirable people. "There was no superiority of manner, accomplishment, or understanding. ... Miss Carteret... would never have been tolerated in Camden Place but for her birth" (178). Anne would prefer to primarily consider their personalities and forgo the acquaintance, but her family cares about nothing beyond their titles, and they grovel before them.

Anne vastly prefers the company of her friend Mrs. Smith to that of the Dalrymples. Mrs. Smith is poor and ill, and she has nothing to recommend her. But Anne explains, "My idea of good company... is the company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation" (179). She enjoys her time with Mrs. Smith and she feels she owes her the loyalty of past friendship, so it does not matter to Anne that her friend does not weigh highly on the social scale. When her family finds out about this friendship, they mock her for it.

In some cases, money is enough to buy a person an adequate place in society. Captain Wentworth was originally dismissed as a suitable match for Anne (a "degrading alliance" [35])because although he had great potential, he had no money and no title. He is later accepted as a son-in-law because he has become rich and because Sir Walter can recognize his other positive attributes. Sir Walter admits that Wentworth's "superiority of appearance might not be unfairly balanced against [Anne's] superiority of rank" (299). Perhaps Anne's age is a factor in the acceptance of her husband, however. If she were younger, Sir Walter may have insisted upon a more eminent mate, but in her late-twenties, perhaps a rich but unimportant husband was considered better for her than no match at all.

Lady Russell provides an interesting middle opinion between Sir Walter and Anne regarding a person's worth. She deserves the title "Lady" by being the widow of a knight (18), a lower rank than a baronet but one that carries some distinction. Austen admits that Lady Russell "had prejudices on the side of ancestry; she had a value for rank and consequence," but she balances this by affirming that she was "generally speaking, rational and consistent" (18). In many instances she seems to agree with Sir Walter, but she does not come across in the same obstinate, hot-headed manner that he does. She believes the acquaintanceship of the Dalrymples ought to be cultivated, and she asserts that "it was an acquaintance worth having" (179) despite the inferiority of their personalities, and but yet she adds, "if it could be done, without any compromise of propriety on the side of the Elliots" (178), Lady Russell's disapproval of Anne's past relationship with Captain Wentworth was the factor that made Anne break off the engagement. It seems that Lady Russell was concerned by Wentworth's lack of wealth, but it must be acknowledged that her advice was likely guided more by her care for Anne's future happiness than by any prejudice against Wentworth's poverty. Lady Russell's encouragement of a relationship between Mr. Elliot and Anne is probably another function of her desire for Anne to have a happy life, free from want - and her desire to see Anne restored to Kellynch Hall as Lady Elliot, filling her mother's honoured role and achieving high status, is a function of her status pride that is not unreasonable (190). Lady Russell approves of Anne's friendship with Mrs. Smith and even aids her with transportation for her visits (182). Although Lady Russell values rank and title, she does not prioritize them more than is wise, kind or respectable.

Other examples of characters who contribute to the conversation of social hierarchy: Mary boasts about the limits her acquaintance with the Hayter family, even though they are her husband's cousins and are accepted by the rest of the family (105); the Musgrove parents are pleased with their daughter's choices of husbands (Hayter and Benwick), and do not consider status to be a problem; Mr. Elliot married a socially inferior but rich woman in his youth, defying the Elliot family, but later began to value being the heir of a baronet.

Life of the Beloved

Here is a book I purchased to use in my guided study, for which the proposed topic is (roughly) "the disconnect between the body and soul."  The Life of the Beloved was written by Henri Nouwen at the request of one of his secular Jewish friends who asked Nouwen to write a book that "he and his friends could understand."  This little book was the result.

The premise of the book is that we are all beloved by God, and we all are called to live a life that is a testament to that belovedness.  Borrowing from the language of the eucharist, Nouwen expands on how we become the beloved that we are.  First we are taken, or chosen - and this is an identity that we all need to recognize and claim in our own lives.  Next we are blessed, not cursed.  We do not have to live a life as though it is a curse, but we can recognize the blessing within it, and we do this by saying "yes" to our belovedness.  Thirdly, we are broken. We all have been hurt and broken inwardly at some point in our lives.  We respond to this brokenness by befriending it and then bringing blessing into it.  Finally, we are given.  The true flavour of life comes from giving ourselves to others.  When we recognize our belovedness and give ourselves to others, then they too can come to recognize their own belovedness.  The ultimate giving in life is death. 

As far as writing a book that a secular audience could understand, Nouwen himself includes an epilogue at the end admitting that he had failed.  Indeed, there were times where what he was trying to get across went way above even my head, and sometimes I found his language difficult to access.  However, there were times as well where what Nouwen had to say spoke profoundly to me.

"The greatest trap in our life is not success, popularity, or power, but self-rejection.... I tend to blame myself - not just for what I did, but for who I am." (31)

"The blessings that we give to each other are expressions of the blessing that rests on us from all eternity.  It is the deepest affirmation of our true self.  It is not enough to be chosen.  We also need an ongoing blessing that allows us to hear in an ever-new way that we belong to a loving God who will never leave us alone, but will remind us always that we are guided by love on every step of our lives." (72)

"Our sufferings and pains are not simply bothersom interruptions of our lives; rather, they touch us in our uniqueness and our most intimate individuality.  The way I am broken tells you something unique about me... I am deeply convinced that each human being suffers in a way no other human being suffers." (87)

Do we want to discuss these quotes?  I fear to say more about them, because they touch a very deep and intimate part of my own life.

Bookworms

So, to state the obvious:

• we have a book club
• this book club is centered on this blog
• we write about things we have read individually, in whatever way we desire
• sometimes we read books together

But... what do we do with the works we have read together? What makes "together" different than "separately"? How does the discussion and the sharing of ideas and experiences begin?

Here's my suggestion: when we read something together, how about we each pick a theme and write something on that topic for this blog. The theme you pick will hopefully be something about the book that really interested you, and things that seem obvious to you may not stick out to the rest of us - so spell it out! Then further discussion of that theme can happen in the comments.

What do you think?

Scholarly Pursuit

I have signed up for a correspondence course in Nineteenth Century English Literature, and over the next quite-a-while, this is what I'll be reading:

Aspects of the Novel by E.M. Forster

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (1813)

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (1818)

The Heart of Mid-Lothian by Sir Walter Scott (1818)

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte (1847)

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte (1847)

Vanity Fair by William Thackeray (1848)

Bleak House by Charles Dicken (1853)

North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell (1855)

Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope (1857)

Middlemarch by George Eliot (1872)

The Egoist by George Meredith (1879)

The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler (1884)

Tess of the d'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy (1891)

Do any of these appeal to you guys? Would you be interested in reading some of them with me? It would be fun to have company along my literary jouney!

Cold Magic

After catching up on book 13 of the Wheel of Time series, I wasn't sure when I would get my next fantasy fix.  Thankfully, a friend gave me a book for my birthday that solved that conundrum.  Cold Magic by Kate Elliot is a fantasy novel set in an alternate Europe at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.  At this time there are two ideological poles that define the people in this world: those of the old tradition who have devoted themselves to magic, and those of the new trends of technology and progress that are rising with the dawn of the machine age.  These two sides are diametrically opposed to each other, as the magic users (particularly the cold magic users) desire to maintain their authority and exalted status above the plebians, who are getting frustrated with their lot in life and beginning to sound the horn for revolution.  In the background, adding a third pole to the tension is the spirit world, which maintains its own order over the universe, keeping a watch on the world of men so that they do not step out of their bounds.

The plot revolves around a heroine, nicknamed Cat, a young lady who is an orphan living with her aunt and uncle while she attends the local university.  One day her life is turned upside down when a cold mage shows up on their doorstep and demands her hand in marriage in response to a magically bonding contract her family had been forced to sign.  What happens though when the truth is revealed that the mage has been given the wrong bride, and in fact the life and identity that Cat had been living all along was a lie?

The setting of this book was a bit disorienting at times.  I'm not used to fantasy being set on an alternative historical Earth.  The author weaves together portions from our real history (like the founding of Carthage) into her fantasy world, both using familiar names from history and renaming those familiar names into something that becomes a lot more foreign to my ears (e.g. renaming the Phoenicians as Kena'ani, which is probably historically what they called themselves, but not what I know them as).  The mixture results in a truly original world, but for anyone who knows even a little of history the result can be disorienting because it becomes difficult to identify where real history turns off, and the fiction begins.

Despite all of this, the book was a charming read.  It is written in the first person and you become really drawn into the person who Cat is: a feisty, curious, proud and independent young lady who, well, is kind of like a cat.  One of the most random and charming things about the book were the occasional comments the narrator would put in pointing out her cat-like attributes.  A supporting character in the story is her cousin, Beatrice, nicknamed "Bee", and I just love the thought of two of the main characters going by "Cat" and "Bee."

Another thing I loved about this story was the sense of mystery that pervaded the entire thing.  As the narrative unfolds you are learning and puzzling about things alongside the main character, and at times find yourself being as shocked as she is with some of the revelations.  Nothing is really as it seems at first in this story, and the mystery only grows bigger as the plot goes on.  As this is the first book in a trilogy, of which the other two books have not been written yet, not all the questions have been answered by the end of the book.  And yet despite this, I found that the author really answered the most important questions, and I was able to leave the book feeling satisfied with the resolution, although of course wanting to read more.

More Kinsella

I just finished reading The Undomestic Goddess by Sophie Kinsella. I have also previously read Remember Me? and Confessions of a Shopaholic (just the first one). Amanda, like you, I think I prefer the other books to the Shopaholic story (even though I've only read one book of the series). I had a hard time relating to Becky because personally I'm so not a shopaholic. I'm unwilling to spend huge amounts of money on things and I don't care about those fancy brand names. I'm sensible, and she made no sense to me.

The Undomestic Goddess made more sense to me. It's about a girl who works too much, and learns to slow down. It's about doing what's good for you, instead of grasping the lofty position that is expected of you. It's about living below your potential because you've learned to value things differently. Of course, a plot summary would look more like: a high-powered lawyer makes a disastrous mistake and runs off to be a housekeeper, despite her utter lack of cleaning or cooking abilities. It is quite humourous.

Still, it couldn't escape all criticism. I found the love story distastefully sappy. And it's unrealistic that she could learn to cook so quickly. She seems to pick things up instantly, whereas I think a more general experience is that things never turn out as well when you do it on your own. I'd expect continuing failures.

Here was my favorite line: "Tasting gravy with your eyes closed is a fairly intimate thing to do, it turns out. I'm not sure I want anyone watching me." It reminds me of a choir practice once upon a time when we sang True Colours with our eyes closed - and I cried. There's something instantly introspective and emotional about blocking out the world around you.

the edible woman

margaret atwood's breakthrough novel and protofeminist treatise considers gender roles and societal expectations in the late 1960s through the metaphors of the hunt, consumption, and cannibalism.

i talked to idris about this book a little bit, and he compared its subject matter to jane austen's discussion of marriage as the realm within which women were ambitious in the early 19th century: it was a matter of survival and was approached almost as career decisions are now. in fact, connecting those dots - austen's elizabeth bennett to ibsen's nora helmer to atwood's marian to me - can induce vertigo! life has changed so much for western women in just two centuries. and - as a cause, effect, and effect of the same cause - for men, too.

in the final analysis, i struggled with this novel. unsurprisingly, the writing itself was lovely in its rhythmic oscillation from poetic description and metaphor to concrete colloquial prose. but when the protagonist, marian, loses it a little bit, her actions aren't nearly as inexplicable as the reactions of others to her. in fact, almost everyone but marian comes across as symbolic rather than real. this isn't a complaint, exactly - after all, most of us view the minor characters in our lives as largely representational rather than authentic. i also found myself wondering if even compensating with the requisite inflation that comes with metaphor, there might be some hyperbole going on. but this is common for me: i have to confess that i really can't fathom what these women went through, both inside and outside their heads. and this journey into one such woman's mind was disorienting and somewhat unsatisfying for me. i wasn't entirely happy with some of her decisions, and i didn't know how i felt about how it all ended. that sort of thing.

this is only the second atwood i've ever read - i finally read "alias grace" last year, and liked it quite a bit. i feel that she's telling important stories, stories that haven't been told before and are therefore mysterious - you really have no clue where it's all heading. it's not always the most enjoyable experience, but it's unfailingly interesting and thought-provoking. and a little humbling. after all, being reminded that there are so many stories unlike my own really puts things into perspective.

Sophie Kinsella

I just finished the recently released novel  "Mini Shopoholic," the sixth installment in the Shopoholic Series by Sophie Kinsella (a.k.a Medeleine Wickham). I have now read every book Madeleine has ever written under her pen name Sophie Kinsella. Strangely I did not enjoy her novels under her real name, but Sophie Kinsella (her alter ego)'s writing is very enjoyable. The series focuses on Becky Bloomwood, a financial journalist who cannot manage her own finances. The series highlights her obsession with shopping and its resulting complications in her life. Although being a shopoholic is certainly a large part of her trouble it should be mentioned that many of her misadventures could be avoided if she did not chronically lie to avoid dealing with difficult issues. In this latest book Becky's permissive parenting style gets her and her daughter Minnie into all kinds of trouble and Becky works hard to try to prove herself to her friends and family. It was a fun easy read and the end of the novel left plenty of room for the author to continue the series if she likes. I have also read Sophie Kinsella's stand alone novels ("Can you Keep a Secret", "The Undomestic Goddess", "Remember Me?", and "Twenties Girl"). I think I actually enjoyed the stand alone novels more than her shopoholic series and hope that she comes out with more of these.

previous meals

i changed our "bookstorm" bit on the left column into a list of books we've read and discussed on this blog. could you each add the titles you've brought to the table? i tried to do it but found that a surprising number of them had letters that my keyboard hasn't been able to reproduce since i spilled cornmeal and water all over it two years ago.

thanks, ladies!

the sentimentalists

i received johanna skibsrud's giller prize winning novel, "the sentimentalists," for christmas from my surrogate grandfather. (it was only then that i realized he tends to shop giller alumni for me!) this is the fastest i've ever consumed a book he gave me.

the plot of the story - woman tries to understand her father's experiences in the vietnam war and the impact of those experiences on her parents' marriage and the family as a whole - doesn't do justice to skibsrud's lyricism and thoughtfulness. the novel is occasionally a little over-written for me, but that could just mean i've grown lazy.

one of the things i loved about the book is that a lot of it takes place in casablanca, ontario - a town that doesn't exist as far as i can tell. everyone there knows the script to that hilarious and heartbreaking film inside and out, and the characters quote the film in casual conversation. when someone asks the narrator's dad if it might rain, he puts on his ingrid bergman voice and says, "it's a crazy world, anything can happen!"

i don't know anyone who has suffered the horrors of war, either as a soldier or a civilian. but my family quotes movies, too. we quote "singin' in the rain" and "mary poppins" and "to sir with love." and it was so lovely to hear another family do that. they did math problems and crossword puzzles and quoted classic movies. they were like me and my people. we had a kinship, those characters and i, and that connection made the unfamiliar parts of their story hit home for me. it's kind of magical how that happens.

but maybe i'm just a rank sentimentalist.

Any Takers?

Is anyone interested in a copy of Persuasion by Jane Austen? I discovered tonight that I have three!
You are welcome to any one you would like. Although these pictures are all the same size, the first one is the smallest and hardcover (purse sized, perhaps), the second is a regular paperback size, and the third is a hardcover tome (and it includes all Jane Austen's other novels too - and it turns out I have another copy of all of them!). The first and third have (identical) pen illustrations, and the second has some helpful notes at the end. I think I got the first one first, long ago, then forgetting that I had it I bought the second one because I like that publisher. Then I received the third for Christmas, and that made me look closely at my bookshelf and see the triplication.

I hope someone is persuaded!